Alternative Models of Reality

Tom,

"Since the statement contradicts your claims, it hardly need be said even once, much less repeated."

Forget criticizing what you do not understand. The question is do you understand that: Physicists did not know how to define either force or mass, and, their solution was to make mass a fundamentally indefinable property, letting force then be defined in terms of mass and acceleration?

when you finally acknowledge that this is correct, then, go through your struggle to understand that it does not contradict my claims. If you do not have the interest then that is a good reason for you to forget it. These circles you draw waste both of our times. Your time is valuably spent discussing Joy's work.

For anyone reading this other than Tom, It is historically and currently correct to state that physicists never defined mass. I do not contradict this statement when I say that I have defined mass. Period!

James Putnam

Examples of this effect;

Chasing the black holes of the ocean

"According to researchers from ETH Zurich and the University of Miami, some of the largest ocean eddies on Earth are mathematically equivalent to the mysterious black holes of space. These eddies are so tightly shielded by circular water paths that nothing caught up in them escapes."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-black-holes-ocean.html#jCp

Dating our galaxy's dormant volcano

""It's been long suspected that our galactic center might have sporadically flared up in the past. These observations are a highly suggestive 'smoking gun'," said Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, who was one of the first people to suggest that black holes generate the power seen coming from quasars and galaxies with 'active' centers."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-dating-galaxy-dormant-volcano.html#jCp

James,

Despite your perceptions, I am not here to discredit your work. If you'll notice, I treat everyone the same way with the questions I ask. My question to you is not esoteric or ambiguous:

If yours is an objective idea, by what means can you show that you (or anyone) knows that it is objective?

I appreciate that you think my argument over definitions is circular; however, all definitions *are* circular, i.e., self-referential. That Newton defined mass in terms of inertia and Einstein extended the definition to energy makes their definitions operational rather than mathematically formal, which is only consistent with *all* definitions for physical phenomena.

I'm trying to understand how you can say that certain physical phenomena are undefined in physics while claiming that your own physics defines them. You aren't helping me (or yourself) by refusing to provide a framework in which to understand, and even further providing no references. If it's true that "Physicists did not know how to define either force or mass, and, their solution was to make mass a fundamentally indefinable property, letting force then be defined in terms of mass and acceleration ..." then who said it, what did they mean by "indefinable," and what is lacking in the operational definitions that would be corrected by some other -- unknown and unstated -- means of "defining?" And then -- in what way would physics change if one accepted this premise? Yes, I know that you've said "theory would be removed" yet theorizing is itself a process of defining, so how does your proposed non-theory differ from theory?

Since you've mentioned my appreciation of Joy's research, then let me reinforce my statement that I treat everyone the same way. I still cringe at the word "disproof" for reasons of mathematical logic: like your "non-theory" that is apparently identical to "theory," a purported disproof can only be identical to a proof that disproves itself. I came to understand that I can live with this in the context of Joy's framework, because all the mathematical proofs of Bell's theorem are nonconstructive; they prove what they assume. So even though I still don't like the word, I know what it means in that context.

I would be your biggest defender if you supplied a self-consistent framework by which your claims could be deduced. Even if you said it wasn't a theory.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"I appreciate that you think my argument over definitions is circular; however, all definitions *are* circular, i.e., self-referential. That Newton defined mass in terms of inertia and Einstein extended the definition to energy makes their definitions operational rather than mathematically formal, which is only consistent with *all* definitions for physical phenomena.

I'm trying to understand how you can say that certain physical phenomena are undefined in physics while claiming that your own physics defines them. You aren't helping me (or yourself) by refusing to provide a framework in which to understand, and even further providing no references. If it's true that "Physicists did not know how to define either force or mass, and, their solution was to make mass a fundamentally indefinable property, letting force then be defined in terms of mass and acceleration ..." then who said it, what did they mean by "indefinable," and what is lacking in the operational definitions that would be corrected by some other -- unknown and unstated -- means of "defining?" And then -- in what way would physics change if one accepted this premise? Yes, I know that you've said "theory would be removed" yet theorizing is itself a process of defining, so how does your proposed non-theory differ from theory?"

I have given a reference and even quoted it. I have explained what must be done and why. I have explained what happens to properties and their units. I have explained how the equations of physics change. I have done this for years in messages and in essays. Ok, I understand that a theoretical physicist might glimpse at something I right and quickly dismiss it as obviously wrong. So, it is reasonable to assume that almost no one here yet understands what I mean when I differentiate between equations in their theoretical forms and their empirical forms. So I will let the criticisms you give above pass as an understandable misunderstanding.

Beginning at the beginning. I quote from College Physics, Sears and Zemansky, 1960, 3rd ed., Chapter 1, Page 1:

"1-1 The fundamental indefinable of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, what ever the matter may be."

A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured. Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass' and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinable of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinable. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics.

In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinable are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition.

1-2 Standards and units. The measurement of any indefinable of physics involves the application of a simple set of rules. Instead of referring to these rules in the abstract, let us employ them in connection with the quantity "length." The first step is to choose an arbitrary standard of length, in the form of an inanimate, solid, durable material. The international standard of length is... A standard is arbitrary, and its virtue lies in the fact that all the scientists of the world accept it. ..."

I have this book as a reference because I bought it used off of the internet. I chose it because the author states the case clearly. My impression from reading is that modern texts tend to give weaker introductions. I will wait and see if this message is understood. Lest any reader think that this is too trivial to ponder about, it represents the first error of theoretical physics.

James Putnam

I can't edit my message so I point out that in the quote I gave, the repeated missing s on indefinable is my error.

From Sears & Zemansky "A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured."

Yes, James. That's what I told you -- physical definitions are always operational, never formal. The "set of rules for calculating" is formal, and it's called a theory.

Best,

Tom

JC,

I replied about curved space-time derivation from discrete fields which you asked about above; ("I'm now curious as to how your model comes to expanding the angle of incidence into the angle of refraction"). I'd lost this, so I think it's in the Q&A string, but briefly (for the static case, or see my last years essay);

As this years essay; the toroidal electrons/ions (which I remind you are twin vortices John M) have an 'orientation' wrt the EM field they're part of. Approaching 'wave' or photon (all just 3D fluctuations) energy is far lower magnitude than the particle. Different particles harmonise and couple with with different wavelengths (see the graphs, they do overlap a bit).

If the ions are pure and fresh (fermion conjugate electron/positron pairs condense and annihilate almost instantly in shocks) there is no delay (as n=1, or in fact plasma ~0.999998). But as the particle is providing the impetus for propagation (photons may otherwise tire and slow after a few billion yrs) the orientation of the torus DOES have a slight effect on the re-emission axis, rotating it imperceptibly towards the 'field lines'.

Except that where there are a lot of these ('massive') particles the effect can be seem as an apparent path curvature. But is is not a 'vector', a 'path' or a 'curvature' but a rotation. This is proved in the diagrams of my "Much Ado.." essay, showing how in the model the optical axis (apparent source position) is rotated AWAY FROM the causal wavefront!! This is the key to invisibility optics. We've assumed we 'observe' a source normal to the wavefront. Arrays and optics shows up we do NOT! This is anomalous to current doctrine but implicit in nature (DFM). Interstellar Faraday rotation of polarity is a directly related implicit effect, as is elliptical polarity, the Kerr effects etc...

The kinetic effect of deep space plasma refraction just found by the VLBArray (link above somewhere) is the precise affect of 'charge asymmetry' predicted in last years essay. So essentially this is quantum gravity, along with the other effects I listed in the Q&A post. Does that start to make sense now?

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

"Yes, James. That's what I told you -- physical definitions are always operational, never formal. The "set of rules for calculating" is formal, and it's called a theory."

You have to understand right from the beginning that measuring distance and time does not involve theory. Measuring mass does not involve theory. It is the choice to make mass an indefinable property that is theoretical. Lets stay on this point until the difference is made clear. The empirical evidence of acceleration is not theoretical. The measurement process of acceleration is not theoretical. The standard for mass is not theoretical. Instead of saying you told me so, please address this question: What is the justification for making mass a fundamental indefinable property? This is where we will find out what your interest really is. Stay with the reason for not defining mass. We can move on after this first step is dealt with.

James Putnam

"You have to understand right from the beginning that measuring distance and time does not involve theory."

It most certainly does, James. I suppose you mean by this, that general relativity would be falsfied because Minkowski space does not consider space and time as independently real physical quantities, like the absolute space and absolute time of Newtonian physics. In fact, though, even Newtonian space is incorporated into a theory of measurement described by Euclidean geometry. And Newtonian time is taken from Galileo's concept of the rate of change of a trajectory, for which Newton invented the calculus to accommodate the rate of change of the rate of change (rate of change squared) inherent in gravitational acceleration. Because Newton stood by the philosophy that "time flows equably" throughout the universe, he did not generalize the relation of time to space, which had to wait for Minkowski and Einstein.

"Measuring mass does not involve theory. It is the choice to make mass an indefinable property that is theoretical."

No. Every mass measurement standard is accompanied by a theory -- and has to be -- because of the demonstrated equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass. *Even if* mass were simply an absolute and unchanging quantity, i.e., if a kilogram on Earth weighed the same as a kilogram on the moon, so that the inertial masses were identical, one would need a theory to explain why the differing gravitational masses attracted the kilogram-mass at the same rate (though of course, this doesn't happen).

Best,

Tom

Tom,

We are discussing the beginning of physics. There is nothing but the observation that objects change their velocities. We are interested in why and how they do this. I asked you to stick with the decision to make mass a fundamental indefinable property. The question was: What is the justification for making mass an indefinable property? If you do not understand the importance of this or if you do not see it as important then let me know. But it is not getting skipped over. The discussion can end here but this point is not getting skipped over.

James Putnam

"The question was: What is the justification for making mass an indefinable property?"

James, the only way to answer this is with another question, "What makes you think that mass *is* indefinable?"

If it weren't defined operationally, we could not even *speak* of a quantity called "mass." If it were not not defined formally, we could not predict its value. And when you say that the significance of gravity is only a mechanism by which "objects change their velocities," you even deny that gravity is a relation between m and M. Seriously, do you think that makes sense? Certainly not to classical physics.

Do you want to discard classical physics altogether as "the beginning of physics"?

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"James, the only way to answer this is with another question, "What makes you think that mass *is* indefinable?""

Mass is a fundamental indefinable property as explained in message number one. The empirical evidence is changes of velocities of objects due to force. There is nothing else to deal with yet. We observe from the patterns in changes of velocities of objects that each object has its own measure of resistance to force. We don't know why yet. We call it mass. We accept from Newton that the patterns of changes of velocities of objects can be modeled with the equation f=ma. Now we have to determine how to define force and mass. It was decided to accept mass without a definition making it a fundamental indefinable property joining the status of length and time. What is the justification for making mass a fundamental indefinable property?

James Putnam

"The empirical evidence is changes of velocities of objects due to force."

No it isn't. Gravitational acceleration is shown to be due to the curvature of spacetime, not force.

Tom,

"No it isn't. Gravitational acceleration is shown to be due to the curvature of spacetime, not force."

We are discussing the beginning of physics. Newton shows us f=ma. He explains to us that f is force and m is resistance to force called mass. In order to use the equation length, time, force, and mass need units. The units for length and time are accepted as being naturally indefinable. We need units for force and mass. It was not clear how to define units for both force and mass. It was decided, and remains the case today, that the units for mass would themselves be also indefinable. The units for force were then defined in terms of the units for length, time, and mass. What is the justification for making the units of mass fundamentally indefinable?

James Putnam

"What is the justification for making the units of mass fundamentally indefinable?"

Mathematical consistency and coherence.

Tom

Tom,

""What is the justification for making the units of mass fundamentally indefinable?""

"Mathematical consistency and coherence"

They could have had that with a defined unit. The question is not answered.

!. What is the justification for making mass a fundamentally indefinable property?

2. What is the justification for making the units of mass fundamentally indefinable?

If you are not interested just say so. A third question.

3. What defines a defined unit?

I already know all this. You either want to learn it or not. I am not talking about my ideas, I am talking about the fundamentals of the physics that you are supposed to know. It is a waste of time for you to try to sidetrack it. The decision concerning mass concerns the rest of theory including that which you defend so well today. I await either direct answers to the questions or your request to end this.

James Putnam

Completing my message myself:

!. What is the justification for making mass a fundamentally indefinable property?

In order to make f=ma practically useful there have to be units for force and mass. The units for either property cannot be defined by solving the equation for that property. It appears that we do not receive guidance from the empirical evidence on how to proceed. That lack of direction is interpreted to mean that either force or mass must be a fundamentally indefinable property. The logic would follow like this: We can't solve for a definition for either length or time. They must be fundamentally indefinable properties. We can't solve for a definition for either force or mass. The conclusion is that one of them must be a fundamentally indefinable unit. This reasoning appears to be consistent. The result is that once mass in made a fundamentally indefinable property f=ma becomes practically useful. This result justifiesy the decision.

2. What is the justification for making the units of mass fundamentally indefinable?

Since properties are represented in equations by their units, the argument is analogous to that given above.

3. What defines a defined unit?

A defined unit is one that can be fully described in terms of pre-existing units.

A follow-up question is: Practical utility of f=ma is gained, what is lost?

James Putnam

"Tom,

'What is the justification for making the units of mass fundamentally indefinable?'

'Mathematical consistency and coherence'

They could have had that with a defined unit. The question is not answered."

And it works also with undefined units -- so the question is answered. James, equations are solved for numbers, not "properties." The only way that we know that physical properties correspond to the numbers is by the outcome of experiments that the numbers predict, therefore turning one set of numbers into another (which is called a function) -- how? In theory.

Science pared to essentials is nothing more than theory and result.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

You didn't answer the question. We solve equations for numbers and units. The equations may or may not involve theory. In the case of f=ma it begins without theory. The decision to make mass an indefinable property makes the equation theoretical. The theory is that mass is a fundamental indefinable property. Mass is represented in f=ma by the units of kilograms. The decision to assign the fundamental indefinable units of kilograms is what makes the equation subservient to the theory of the indefinable status of mass.

James Putnam